Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I tend to hear a lot of people talk about game X or game Y as being too complex or too simple (often for the same game). I honestly don't see it as necessarily a contradiction, since I've sat down and solidified my philosophy on gaming complexity (yeah, I think about this stuff a bit much...)


- A game features a Tactical Complexity and a Rules Complexity.

- Tactical Complexity is a positive feature. It means that I'm making difficult decisions that decide the outcome of the match, but the solutions are not obvious or easy.

- Rules Complexity is a negative feature- this represents how cumbersome the rules are. If you need five decks of cards to draw from and the game takes an hour to set up, that's Rules Complexity.

- However, some Rules Complexity often contributes to adding Tactical Complexity. But sometimes they do not- no one wants to spend two hours with ten separate decks of cards only to have the winner be completely random.

- Therefore- a game passes my test if I find that the Rules Complexity is justified by the Tactical Complexity they provide.



That's the simple version. The truth is, there are other things that can justify added complexity- if something is funny enough, or thematic in an entertaining way, the complexity can be justified. Also, there are elements of luck and time- we don't mind spending five minutes on a completely random game, but if we spend two hours on the same game, it is awful.



So the greatest achievement would seemingly be a game that has very low Rules Complexity and very high Tactical Complexity.

- Chess is a good example of the sweet spot- the rules are super simple, but the tactics get really complex.

- Candyland is the lowest complexity game I know on both counts. If fails to be cool mostly because it is WAY TOO LONG. Something like Zombie Dice can get away with being super simple because it is done in five minutes.

- I'd place Warmachine on the high end of both complexities. The core rules are very simple, but every mini has special rules on their card, and they all come into play during the game. I find it impressive that the tactical complexity is actually strong enough to justify the rules complexity (this can make games into intense affairs).

- Various editions of 40k end up in different spots. GW swings back and forth on how complex they want the game to be, and they have some trouble settling on a spot. It has pretty much always occupied a spot that's less tactically complex than Warmachine, but it usually isn't quite to the beer and pretzels level.

Could Rules Complexity extend to needing an absurd amount of reference materials in order to play a game?

If so 40k falls into that category for me. I am really interested in some of the newer armies coming out, but the rules glut and having so many optional/negotiable rules/formations/whatever spread out over various media (PDFs, printed books) that I just lose interest. Keeping all of that stuff straight before even picking up a model or building an army list tanks any sort of enthusiasm or desire to play.

Another game that had that problem but I think is slowly recovering is Battletech.

Battletech started off as a fairly simple beer and pretzels game that expanded over the decades to include a lot of supplemental rules. The nice thing is the system is still fairly simple and can be taught to people in about 10 minutes, but there is depth to the system that makes it hard to master. If you stick to the core rules/equipment you can have straightforward game that is easy to teach and fun.

However, since the rules system hasn't changed dramatically since 1984, there are a ton of supplemental materials out there that can really overwhelm players, especially new ones. The current team handling the game is doing well to categorize supplements based on various eras in the game's fictional history to better designate what type of material is offered in each supplement, but there is still a lot of material to go through between new releases and the old back catalog. Still, its better than it used to be, and with quick play rules expansions like Alpha-Strike, it seems that the designers are trying to bring Battletech up to a modern standard of streamlined play.

I think Zombicide does a good job of balancing Tactical Complexity with Rules Complexity. It is really easy to learn and play a game of Zombicide, but as you work through some of the later scenarios it becomes clear that you can't just hack and shoot your way through to victory.

In your opinion what is the sweet spot for miniature games currently?

40K certainly suffers from an abundance of complexity which doesn't add corresponding depth to the gameplay, where depth is defined by meaningful choices a player can make within the ruleset.

A perfect example of this is the huge increase in random charts over the past couple of editions. They add complexity to the ruleset without increasing the meaningful choices the player can actually make. There's no meaningful choice that a Chaos player makes to roll on the chaos boon table when their chaos lord murders that sergeant, they are forced to. Same for Orks with Mob Rule.

Extra Credits did a great episode on this from a video game perspective but I think the points they raise can be translated across relatively easily:

Did you just claim Age of Sigmar is like Chess? That is a joke.

Great topic, looking forward to what others will say.

If you need five decks of cards to draw from and the game takes an hour to set up, that's Rules Complexity

Not sure what this means. Sadly I am a visual person and can't think without "seeing" it. What game would this be? Or are you just talking general? If this is like a 40K analogy does this mean "making a list" before hand and then "setting up a game because we got to roll on random table to see what game to play, roll on random table to see what scenario we are playing" and that is why setting up takes so long?

Just asking so I can understand this more. That said, what is acceptable Complexity in games? Well first of all what do you mean by complexity? For me complexity means a mess. For others complexity means added more rules and stats added to so a game is not simple. Who is correct here? Am I correct or am I wrong? Neither since it's an opinion.

All I can say is what is acceptable is what doesn't bog the game down.

I think the problem is a lot of people use the word complexity for depth. Some of those people will say if a game doesn't have depth, it's too simple for them to play so it's no fun to play or even try. But instead of using the word depth, they will use the word complexity since it makes them smarter, to play and therefore they are better for some reason. Just like how we don't "play" with toy soldiers but we "game" with miniatures.

X-wing is one of those games with rules simplicity but tactical complexity that I find very enjoyable.

I agree that 40K has belabored itself with unnecessary rules complexity - the random tables is one aspect, the 10,000,000 snowflake USRs that are slight variations of other USRs is another that makes the game a headache.

Even D&D 3E started off with rules simplicity, but with the expanding list of feats, spells, races, (prestige) classes and the like became so bogged that the game became a chore for DMs to run. 4E cut the other direction so that there was a lot of outcry about the blandness and cries that the roleplaying vanished in favor of a hack'n'slash form of game. 5E seems to have straddled the two extremes, remaining simple but being open so that it can handle a wide breadth of play styles.

I do hope 40K rights itself with a balance of rules simplicity and tactical depth, but I have no faith that what will come out of 8th edition will be more than a tweaked AoS that no one is pleased with.

 Stormonu wrote:

I do hope 40K rights itself with a balance of rules simplicity and tactical depth, but I have no faith that what will come out of 8th edition will be more than a tweaked AoS that no one is pleased with.

It's actually quite simple to do. Just give rules how to move, how to attack, how to defend, and don't have any universal special rules and the rest of the rules can be on "cards" or download the data slates off the net. The stats of the units can just be like in the codices for the beginning of 8th edition so nothing is invalidated since all the rules will be on the card/data slates.

Thing is, it's just time consuming, and could have been done by now. Still we are 6 months away from release so they still have time to do so.

Thing is, GW of old would hardly lift a finger to do any work and charge triple for their effort. Will GW of new actually do the leg work needed to fix their game? Time will tell. Six months and counting now.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
40K certainly suffers from an abundance of complexity which doesn't add corresponding depth to the gameplay, where depth is defined by meaningful choices a player can make within the ruleset.

A perfect example of this is the huge increase in random charts over the past couple of editions. They add complexity to the ruleset without increasing the meaningful choices the player can actually make. There's no meaningful choice that a Chaos player makes to roll on the chaos boon table when their chaos lord murders that sergeant, they are forced to. Same for Orks with Mob Rule.

Extra Credits did a great episode on this from a video game perspective but I think the points they raise can be translated across relatively easily:

So...

If your Dwarf Greybeards don't move, they get a 2+ Armor Save = Depth.

If you get down on your knees and swear a blood oath of vengeance against your opponents family, your Dwarf Greybeards get a 2+ Armor Save = Complexity?

 Stormonu wrote:
X-wing is one of those games with rules simplicity but tactical complexity that I find very enjoyable.

On the other hand, I find X-Wing frighteningly complicated due to the hundreds of possible options available. If I were playing X-Wing all the time, and nothing else, I might manage to stay on top of all the possible upgrades, but playing casually ... nah. I'll stick to Luke and R2-D2 again, I think.

To me, what's important is complexity appropriate to the command level I'm playing. In 40k, as a company commander, I shouldn't need to worry that squad 3's missile launcher can't see because he's behind a big rock. That's the sergeant's job to worry about. Just chuck that stuff away and abstract it like AT-43 did, for example. By contrast, I find that it's insufficiently complex when it comes to morale.

 AndrewGPaul wrote:

 Stormonu wrote:
X-wing is one of those games with rules simplicity but tactical complexity that I find very enjoyable.

On the other hand, I find X-Wing frighteningly complicated due to the hundreds of possible options available. If I were playing X-Wing all the time, and nothing else, I might manage to stay on top of all the possible upgrades, but playing casually ... nah. I'll stick to Luke and R2-D2 again, I think.

To me, what's important is complexity appropriate to the command level I'm playing. In 40k, as a company commander, I shouldn't need to worry that squad 3's missile launcher can't see because he's behind a big rock. That's the sergeant's job to worry about. Just chuck that stuff away and abstract it like AT-43 did, for example. By contrast, I find that it's insufficiently complex when it comes to morale.

Analysis Paralysis certainly is a thing - where there's just too many options to choose from that makes playing unfun, and the bane of many games (3E D&D became a victim, for example). A lot of people, as you indicated, will stick to a small subset they know and never branch out to try new options, even if they may be better (I'm somewhat the same with the Tie, Tie FO & Tie FO/SF - Tie is just fine for me, thanks).

As I have been doing my 40K replacement, I have found that you really don't want a given unit to have more than one or two unusual rules that you're keeping track of. It just gets too easy to forget something when a rule either doesn't apply to the entire force or is too similar, but not quite like, another special rule (like Relentless and Slow and Purposeful, or Rend and Shred - or the most annoying of all ATSKNF & Fearless).

 AndrewGPaul wrote:

 Stormonu wrote:
X-wing is one of those games with rules simplicity but tactical complexity that I find very enjoyable.

On the other hand, I find X-Wing frighteningly complicated due to the hundreds of possible options available. If I were playing X-Wing all the time, and nothing else, I might manage to stay on top of all the possible upgrades, but playing casually ... nah. I'll stick to Luke and R2-D2 again, I think.

To me, what's important is complexity appropriate to the command level I'm playing. In 40k, as a company commander, I shouldn't need to worry that squad 3's missile launcher can't see because he's behind a big rock. That's the sergeant's job to worry about. Just chuck that stuff away and abstract it like AT-43 did, for example. By contrast, I find that it's insufficiently complex when it comes to morale.

That is so true. At least on the other hand it will be easier to start and learn how to play the game with X-wing than say 40K or Warmahordes.

Another bad thing about 40K and Warmahordes and especially Warmahordes now, is all the FAQs/Errata now you have to keep up to date, and even worse if 40K becomes a "living" rule book with updated FAQs. That is even more to the mess than all the "options" we have in X-wing that will ever happen. I am not sure how it works for Warmahordes but in 40K it's what,

Codex FAQ>codex>Big Rule Book FAQ>BRB. Then add in supplements, not sure how that will fall into the equation.

 Mangod wrote:
So...

If your Dwarf Greybeards don't move, they get a 2+ Armor Save = Depth.

If you get down on your knees and swear a blood oath of vengeance against your opponents family, your Dwarf Greybeards get a 2+ Armor Save = Complexity?

No, both of them are complexity. Depth is about how many interesting strategic decisions there are to make, complexity is about how many rules there are to memorize. ANY rule, no matter how much it adds to the game, increases complexity. The only question is whether or not that increased complexity is justified by increased depth (or increased representation of the fluff, etc). In the case of your examples the first rule adds complexity but also adds depth. There's a choice between a 2+ save on a static unit or a lesser save and the ability to move, a meaningful and interesting strategic decision. The second rule adds complexity but not any depth. You have to remember that the rule exists and humiliate yourself to activate it, but there's no strategic reason to ever not use it. From a pure game mechanics point of view this rule is just a more complicated way of putting a 2+ armor save in the unit's basic stat line.

I think there are other continuums of complexity in games other than simply tactical and rules.

For example, GW tries to expound their games as collaborative narrative devices, not just straight competitive affairs. I guess some untactical rules complexity might exist as a component of narrative complexity (which, using an earlier example, I suppose is what the chaos boon table attempts to achieve).

nareik wrote:
I think there are other continuums of complexity in games other than simply tactical and rules.

For example, GW tries to expound their games as collaborative narrative devices, not just straight competitive affairs. I guess some untactical rules complexity might exist as a component of narrative complexity (which, using an earlier example, I suppose is what the chaos boon table attempts to achieve).

I disagree. RPGs manage to resolve a much wider range of situations than any GW game does and they do so, for the most part, with much less rule memorisation required as the vast majority of those situations are resolved using a core mechanic which is applied to them all.

So in DnD the standard method of resolving basically all mechanical situations, whether they are combat encounters, trying to get information from an NPC etc. is to roll your D20, apply modifiers and check against a required value.
In FATE you roll your 4 fudge dice, add the resultant number of pluses and subtract minuses from your base skill level and compare to target number.
In FFG 40K you roll percentile dice, apply modifiers and compare to target number.
And so on.

Good narrative games are built around streamlining the mechanics of actions in order to not get bogged down in rolling hundreds of dice and doing lots of maths in order to give the players more time to think of cool things they want to do and what they need to do in order to pull off one of those cool things. So a player in a DnD campaign could sacrifice their attack to instead try and disarm their opponent. They could try and flick it away with pure skill (Dexterity vs Reflex check) or smash it out of the opponents hand with brute force (Strength vs Fortitude check). The only thing which changes between either method is the numbers they are adding to their roll and the number they need to beat, never the actual method of resolving the situation.

With GW we have different systems for each type of attack (hitting with shooting (score based on your stat) is different to hitting in combat (score based on your stat vs opponents stat) and different to manifesting a psychic power (score based on the power rather than your stats)) and for some reason Leadership tests are rolled on 2D6 whilst other stat checks are a single D6, no matter what their value (so a S10 person is equally likely to fail a strength check as a S6 person whereas a LD6 person is much more likely to fail a leadership check than a LD10 person).

So the key to achieving narrative depth for players (maximise their options for creating a narrative in the manner they wish) is to minimise complexity as that frees the players from the confines of an overly complex system and so more thought can go to creating those cool narratives and making their characters do cool things.
Imagine if in a DnD game you needed to do different types of checks (some rolling over your stat, some under, some using percentile system etc.) using different dice (some using D20s, some D10s, some 3D6 etc.) for different actions. The game would get bogged down with players trying to remember what check and dice they need for what action, instead of thinking what cool thing their Orc/Elf Ninja/Sorcerer/Barbarian was going to do next. It would be a chore to play and you don't actually gain any benefit from having the system be so complex.

Gold standard for me is Star Fleet Battles, its complex for sure, but its also very well structured and the logic internally is consistent, plus everything is cross referenced.

You can beat your opponent to death with the rulebook, assuming you can actually lift it, but a phaser-1 is a phaser-1 on everything, factions tend not to have special rules as such, they have different, sometimes unique equipment which can be highly situational and hard to use - but it pretty much all hinges of a very simple set of core rules governing how starships move, attack, defend and repair themselves.

For all the rulebooks size you don't need it with you to play the game - try that with 40k, you have your ship record, a damage allocation sheet, a movement chart and likely a simple reference sheet for a few tables that are not worth remembering but useful enough to have about.

Say four sides of A4 to actually play the game, plus your ship and energy record, and the rules are structured so actually learning them is very simple - start out just moving, then the phasers come in, with shields etc before moving on.

There are no situations of 'this faction has Phaser-1s that are marginally better' - if they are only marginally better its forgotten about, if they are a lot better they are called something else.

Picked up playing that game in a few games, and had countless hours of entertainment out of it - including big multi-player games, easy to explain, easy to play because the rules are so comprehensive.

You want to fling a shuttlecraft against a sphere generator? the rules cover it, customise a missile with armour? yup its in there.

40k is a mess compared to it.

But 40k is also fun to play, just not as well structured.

@Davor- the many decks of cards is a dig on Arkham Horror. Tons of small decks of cards to separate out- but I never caught myself making tactical decisions based on them.


@Dark Traveller- I do believe that 'rules complexity' is really about complexity of gameplay experience. Sometimes some play aids (like unit cards) can allow for a lot more actual complexity without making it 'feel' more complex

And poorly organized rules adds complexity. I mean, riffling through sixteen pages of errata definitely feels complicated.


Kingdom Death is a good example of rules presented very well- the scenarios start you off with only the most basic of items, and each special rule is printed in full on the first item card you encounter with it.

In the end, the game ends up feeling very intuitive- even though there's a lot going on.

The rules for Undercity are probably less complex, but you have to learn all of them before you can play your first game- and some non-intuitive enemy activation priority rules make it feel more complex than it is.

(for the record, I do like to play Undercity even though I'm being critical of it).



@Town Called Malus- and Nereik- I think we're hitting on a different aspect all together. Yes, there are other continua for us to use, and Narrative is one of them.

My original post had a bias toward the "Gamist" aspects of games (manipulation of game elements to achieve victory). Those are the aspects that would not change if we swapped out all the minis for meeples.

There's also a narrative aspect, and I think that getting mileage out of that can be legitimate.


There's another element that you addressed earlier when you stated that you want to 'feel like a general' or 'feel like a sergeant.' That's a Simulationist perspective.

A game can go too far in any direction- an overly narrative focused game might forget to have some game balancing factors, while an overly simulation focused game will have you referencing five charts when you want to turn your starship around. Overly gamist games tend to have awful minis and no theme-game relationship.

By the way- I tend to prefer my RPGs have a healthy dose of Narrativism and Gamism in their system- if they swing too far in one direction or the other, they tend to break when we play them.



@Dark Traveller again- As for my own Holy Grail- I don't feel like there's only one.

I spend a lot of my current gaming time with Kingdom Death (the game does a really good job with long term and short term strategy as well as strong narrative elements done right).

I've also been playing a lot of Blood Bowl- which I feel does a really good job of having lots of tactical decisions within a very straightforward rules set.

Zombicide has done well by me also (I do prefer the Black Plague rules- the tweaks are nice).

On an odd note- I didn't really care for the old Mansions of Madness- but I really like the new one with the App. The difference is that the APP runs a lot of the setup time for you, so the game begins to feel a whole lot less complex (basically you're being GMed by a robot... but really, it works). Which works really well for it.

I think those are the games I'm mostly recommending right now.

I have played some realistic wargames with a lot of rules, the point is when it make sense it is usually not a problem.

Games like x-wing and magic the gathering are simple in concept but complex in set up and decks, same with warmahordes it is the many combinations that make the game complex while the game mechanics itself are not so difficult.

I have no problem with it, but it makes it less fun to play against people who are tournament players, who come up with all those synergy combinations.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

Imagine if in a DnD game you needed to do different types of checks (some rolling over your stat, some under, some using percentile system etc.) using different dice (some using D20s, some D10s, some 3D6 etc.) for different actions. The game would get bogged down with players trying to remember what check and dice they need for what action, instead of thinking what cool thing their Orc/Elf Ninja/Sorcerer/Barbarian was going to do next. It would be a chore to play and you don't actually gain any benefit from having the system be so complex.

Heh, heh - sounds like you haven't had experience with pre-3E D&D games.

Completely agreed that games can go too far in one direction or another.

Sticking with narrative, if a game is too heavily weighted towards giving you a story then why not just read a book, watch a film or play, I suppose.

Aren't these instances more about resolving a narrative generated by the player or GM rather than generating narrative natively? I played AD&D 2nd ed a long time ago so am not too familiar with the mechanics anymore.I do remember our GM frequently proclaiming it being 'the only game in the world where the players don't need to know the rules'.

In general, tactical complexity decreases as rules complexity increases.

Basically, the more time you get to spend on how to use the rules to your advantage, the more tactical the game becomes.

The more time you spend just understanding and respecting the rules, the less time you get to spend on how to take advantage of these.

The more complex the ruleset, the slower any simulation becomes as well, so there's a compound effect.


That's why I think Chess has far more tactical complexity than any wargame, and also why many video games have more tactical complexity than war games.

There is little to no time spent understanding the rules, and everything else is on what to do within the framework of the rules.



I think that's also why you see much stronger competition in Chess, Video games (SC, SC2, ... ) than in board games, where the rules engine is human, and the balance too complex to be precise.

I can only imagine a best of 10 games of 40K... how long that would take ...



There were discussions about rules vs rules interactions, something that shows how 40K rules are "bloated" and how WMH rules are "interactive" - I personally consider both of these an indicator of complexity.
In the end, you need to understand all rules + all interactions to have a good picture, and I doubt the exponential combo possibilities are going to end up drawing a simpler continuum of rules + combinations.


Anyway ....

This is an interesting post, Morgorgoth, and it reminds me of what I read while I was studying sports psychology at college; you go through stages of learning the movements, learning when to use the movements, and finally being able to understand these things without thinking, allowing you to spend your attention on situational awareness and planning. Obviously there isn't a physical intelligence aspect to wargaming, but learning the rules of the game and when to apply them is a pretty close proxy.

morgoth wrote:
In general, tactical complexity decreases as rules complexity increases.

I don't really think any general trend could be found. If the rules are a mess because of the complexity it'll tend to reduce tactical complexity because the game becomes more about figuring out the mess rather than the complexity.

In general I dislike rules complexity within the core rules and exceptions to the core rules, but like it if the core rules are flexibile enough to maintain variety within the forces you can field.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

morgoth wrote:
I think that's also why you see much stronger competition in Chess, Video games (SC, SC2, ... ) than in board games, where the rules engine is human, and the balance too complex to be precise.

It's more a case of what competitive people are drawn to. And it's less an issue of "too complex to be precise" and simply "not precise at all". You can have rules that are simple but not precise or not well suited to competitive play.

AllSeeingSking, I am interested in what you say about complexity. You mention simplicity and lack of exceptions to core rules.

Regarding 40K how do you feel about the basic army lists that came with 2nd ed and the 3rd ed BRB compared to the codex (or later codex/supplement/dataslate) system?

 Stormonu wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

Imagine if in a DnD game you needed to do different types of checks (some rolling over your stat, some under, some using percentile system etc.) using different dice (some using D20s, some D10s, some 3D6 etc.) for different actions. The game would get bogged down with players trying to remember what check and dice they need for what action, instead of thinking what cool thing their Orc/Elf Ninja/Sorcerer/Barbarian was going to do next. It would be a chore to play and you don't actually gain any benefit from having the system be so complex.

Heh, heh - sounds like you haven't had experience with pre-3E D&D games.

I've played 2nd edition, hence my argument we don't want to go back in that direction


Automatically Appended Next Post:

nareik wrote:

Aren't these instances more about resolving a narrative generated by the player or GM rather than generating narrative natively? I played AD&D 2nd ed a long time ago so am not too familiar with the mechanics anymore.I do remember our GM frequently proclaiming it being 'the only game in the world where the players don't need to know the rules'.

I suppose so but I find that players are more likely to come up with interesting actions in game which add to the narrative of the game when they have some inkling as to how it will play out and their rough chances of success.

2nd edition had a lot things rolled by the GM rather than the players, even when it was an action which the player character was doing. Whilst this did mean that the players didn't need to be as fluent in the rules it could also create the situation of players having no concept of the difficulty of tasks relative to their characters skill. A player who tried to find traps and failed didn't know whether they failed because they rolled poorly or because the traps were very well hidden or of a nature undetectable by normal means as the player didn't see what their dice score to find traps was as it was rolled behind the GMs screen.

By having the player rolling they can see how well they roll. If it is low they narrative could be that their character only took a brief glance over the hallway, whereas if it is high the narrative could be that they carefully examine the stonework for slightly raised cobbles which could indicate a pressure plate. If that high roll then fails to detect the trap that a player then triggers, the player could deduce that is due to the traps being extremely well hidden rather than their character just being unobservant, so even though the player failed the roll, they still gain information about the situation from that failure.

So in a good system, the resolution of a narrative situation should naturally lead to the generation of more narrative threads.

I think the level of acceptable complexity is determined solely by the consumer (with the goal perhaps being to find the largest group who finds your rules acceptable?). I'm sure anyone who's been to gaming conventions has seen the two guys in their 60's playing a hex-based Avalon Hill game for eight hours straight. Some of those games are pretty complex with a ton of tables/charts/etc. (anyone ever play Advanced Squad Leader?) At the other end of the spectrum is perhaps CCGs and games like Warhammer 40K. A simpler game with a much larger audience - let's not confuse number of rules with complexity.

I can enjoy a broad range. Dragon Rampant (Lion Rampant) is an excellent example of a stupendously simple rule set which provides a fun game. I can also enjoy a seriously chunky game like Fireball Forward etc.

The way information is presented is also a big determining factor. Myth, for example, is one of the very worst designed games I've ever experienced (despite trying it several times). The rulebooks are terrible, the flow of information awful, the cards are ambiguously worded, and icons are repetitive and unidentifiable. My group tried it several times and came away horribly unimpressed each time.

Being a game designer, my biggest compliment is when people at conventions pick up the rules and run with them by turn two (or when I'm running a game for new friends and they openly say "man, I get it...this is cool" and they can play the game with minimal need of me guiding them).

Having no idea as to the difficulty of a task does not create a more 'tactical' choice for a player- although it can create an interesting narrative. As I stated before, the argument I put forward favors the gamist side of things- and knowing how hard something is to do and deciding based on that is a very gamist and strategic thing to be doing.

morgoth wrote:
In general, tactical complexity decreases as rules complexity increases.

Basically, the more time you get to spend on how to use the rules to your advantage, the more tactical the game becomes.

I disagree with you on this, but I see where you're coming from.

The trouble with your idea is that it doesn't hold true at the extreme end. Candy Land is probably the simplest rules set I've ever played (much simpler than chess) but it is also the least strategic I've ever played.

In the end it is all about the user experience- and you're right about that. Some rules add to the tactical complexity by giving you interesting situations to deal with. Others detract from the tactical complexity because they simply give you more to track.


There's a lot of added complexity in wargames- but the question is how much that complexity leads to interesting tactical situations, and how much it leads to time spend enacting rules without any thinking.



One thing you hit on is the presentation. When you're playing a videogame, there's a lot of complexity to the system that you don't see or interact with. You just put your units here or there and go, right? It is an extreme example of how a game's presentation changes the complexity to play it. Likewise, having lots of different books where the rules are located makes a game feel more complex, while good player aids and presentation makes the game feel less complex (even if the rules are exactly the same).

nareik wrote:
This is an interesting post, Morgorgoth, and it reminds me of what I read while I was studying sports psychology at college; you go through stages of learning the movements, learning when to use the movements, and finally being able to understand these things without thinking, allowing you to spend your attention on situational awareness and planning. Obviously there isn't a physical intelligence aspect to wargaming, but learning the rules of the game and when to apply them is a pretty close proxy.

The four stages of competence?

nareik wrote:
AllSeeingSking, I am interested in what you say about complexity. You mention simplicity and lack of exceptions to core rules.

Regarding 40K how do you feel about the basic army lists that came with 2nd ed and the 3rd ed BRB compared to the codex (or later codex/supplement/dataslate) system?

You mean like the Codex Imperialis in 2nd edition? I actually can't remember what 3rd edition had, did they have a bunch of army rules in the BRB as well?

I don't have anything against either putting stuff in a Codex Imperialis or having separate codices. The Codex Imperialis was largely incomplete though. Something like "Ravening Hordes" for WHFB was great I thought.

But I don't mind either system, codices are good for fleshing out the fluff of an army (though I think they're often written in a messy and convoluted fashion as far as the rules themselves are concerned), I think either way the codices should be aiming to work within the framework established by the core rules rather than adding additional special rules, overturning existing core rules or injecting themselves in the middle of existing rules.

Might I suggest that there is possibly a third dimension with regards to:

Diversity

Per OP, Chess is low rules complexity, and high tactical complexity but it may be "boring" for folks looking for more diversity. OP refers to somewhat when talking about justifying "thematic" / "narrative" complexity but it really deserves its own dimension.

There are folks who wouldn't play 40k at all if both sides were exactly the same, no matter what rules or tactical complexity.

 KiloFiX wrote:
Might I suggest that there is possibly a third dimension with regards to:

Diversity

Per OP, Chess is low rules complexity, and high tactical complexity but it may be "boring" for folks looking for more diversity. OP refers to somewhat when talking about justifying "thematic" / "narrative" complexity but it really deserves its own dimension.

There are folks who wouldn't play 40k at all if both sides were exactly the same, no matter what rules or tactical complexity.

Diversity is kind of what I talked about indirectly in my previous post. The core rules IMO should be simply but flexible enough to maintain variety without having to pile special rule on top of special rule.

I'd actually disagree that chess is a very deep game. Remember, chess is a solved game. A computer can always make the optimal play and will (almost?) always beat even the best human opponents. The set of possible game states is relatively small, and there is no hidden information element. It's just too simple for there to be any unpredictability, and the game comes down to which player has done a better job of memorizing the optimal solutions and avoiding mistakes.